A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final.

A. The victims of misunderstanding of facts did not have been accused of the Defendant by the words such as the entry of the facts charged, and such words were taken out in domestic affairs.

Even if the defendant delivered money to the defendant, the reason is because he believed the defendant's ability to repay and his business ability and obtained a large amount of profit through investment, so the causal relationship between them cannot be recognized.

In addition, even though the defendant had the ability to repay money from the victims at the time of borrowing money, but was unable to repay money due to the incidental circumstances such as liquidity crisis that occurred thereafter, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the facts charged in this case.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment, four years of suspended execution, and two hundred hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) In regard to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, deception as a requirement for fraud means any affirmative or passive act that is widely accepted with the belief and good faith to each other in property transaction. It is sufficient if it does not necessarily require false indication as to the important part of a juristic act, and it is sufficient if it is about the facts that form the basis of judgment for an actor to make a disposition of property which the other party wishes to dispose of by omitting the other party in mistake (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do5774, Oct. 28, 2005). In addition, in a case where, in borrowing money from another person, the other party has failed to comply with the true notice of the purpose of the borrowed money or the method of raising funds to be repaid if it was received money by notifying the other party of the fact contrary to the truth as to the purpose of use or method of raising funds

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6382 delivered on September 15, 2005). Meanwhile, the subjective element of fraud is the crime of fraud.